[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Scsi controllers

John Goerzen wrote:
> "Wes Bauske" <wsb@paralleldata.com> writes:
> > > I'm not sure what you mean here?  For the same type of SCSI (ie, UW),
> > > the NCR will generally outperform the Adaptec.
> > >
> >
> > Not with U2W from what I saw posted on Initio's performance
> > charts for their U2W cards. Looks like the Symbios card didn't
> > even get into U2W mode since it didn't top 40 MB/sec on large
> > block I/O with 4 drives.
> Which symbios card were you using?  Are you sure the one you had was
> U2W-capable?  And that your drives were capable of that performance?
> And that the kernel options were appropriate?

One would assume that Initio used proper cards and DD's
to compare things and I doubt it was Linux they did the
comparison on. Check www.initio.com for all the details.
Looks like from the info, it was NT with what look like 
vendor supplied DD's.

Symbios Logic 53C895
; BIOS v.4.0
; Symc8XX.SYS
; Ver. FLINT.4.05.00

Adaptec INI-2940U2W
; BIOS Ver. 2.00
; AIC78u2.SYS
; Date: 04/13/98

Drives Used:
; 4 Seagate ST39102LW LVD Cheetah 2 w/ Firmware 0004
; Write & Read Cache Enabled

System Used:
; Iwill DPIILS2 Ver.1.0 Oct.24.1997
; 2 X Pentium II-MMX CPU at 233 MHz
; Award System BIOS v.4.51PG
; Total RAM: 192 Mbytes

Speaking of benchmarks, did anyone else see the re-run benchmarks
vs NT for webbench/samba? Looks like there are some weaknesses in 
samba, apache, and the Linux tcp/ip stack. Apparently MS optimized
their IIS code for static pages and split their file system into
four separate partitions to improve performance on the benchmarks.
Thats why NT was fast relative to Linux.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index] []